RIP Harlan Ellison (1934-2018)
- Thread starter JaxsBrokenHeart
- Start date
I think the statement makes the most sense when we use it as a justification of our own sacrifices that will benefit others.
Otherwise, if it is an axiom that is taken as universal truth, it could be as dangerous as "the ends justifies the means".
Otherwise, if it is an axiom that is taken as universal truth, it could be as dangerous as "the ends justifies the means".
And the latest issue of John Byrne's Star Trek comic book series, out Wednesday, suggests there was a settlement after all. Byrne uses the Guardian of Forever (as well as Gary Seven), and there's a credit that reads "Employing Concepts Created by Harlan Ellison," but no copyright credit.
Look, I feel that the needs of the many is not an absolute. It can't be, or it leads to oppression.
By the logic of "the needs of the many," slavery would be acceptable. You take a few strong people and make them slaves who do all the physical labor for the rest, all for food and shelter. You'd probably end up with a better society as a whole, just because you save so much on labor costs.
However, slavery is quite horrible. To do that to another human being, even for the benefits of society, is inhumane.
Let's say person A is an important person--a world leader. That person needs a heart transplant. If he gets it, he will help bring about peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. Person B is a slave in the above example, or even not a slave--just another person, but NOT a world leader.
Person B is a perfect match for Person A, but the one issue is--Person B is alive and healthy and needs that heart.
Do we kill Person B because Person A can make the world a better place?
No.
So the needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the few, and a society that adopts that principle sets themselves up to be an oppressive, totalitarian, society.
To paraphrase Captain Kirk--sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
By the logic of "the needs of the many," slavery would be acceptable. You take a few strong people and make them slaves who do all the physical labor for the rest, all for food and shelter. You'd probably end up with a better society as a whole, just because you save so much on labor costs.
However, slavery is quite horrible. To do that to another human being, even for the benefits of society, is inhumane.
Let's say person A is an important person--a world leader. That person needs a heart transplant. If he gets it, he will help bring about peace and prosperity to the rest of the world. Person B is a slave in the above example, or even not a slave--just another person, but NOT a world leader.
Person B is a perfect match for Person A, but the one issue is--Person B is alive and healthy and needs that heart.
Do we kill Person B because Person A can make the world a better place?
No.
So the needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the few, and a society that adopts that principle sets themselves up to be an oppressive, totalitarian, society.
To paraphrase Captain Kirk--sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
The human thing to do is also to let Edith die. The reason I say that is that if any of us were in that place, choosing otherwise would mean that every person we ever knew or cared about (mother, father, sisters, brothers, friends, sons, daughters, spouses and lovers) would never even exist. What is the millions of unknown deaths compared to that? History contains a billion humans that have died tragically and unfairly in various wars and genocides. What is that to us, when we compare it to our loved ones?
So, either choice is the human choice. Either choice is the selfish choice. Either choice is the compassionate choice. And, either choice is "playing God".
So, either choice is the human choice. Either choice is the selfish choice. Either choice is the compassionate choice. And, either choice is "playing God".
Last edited:
Kirk can't have the universe and his love at the same time.
In other words, he can't have his cake and Edith too.
In other words, he can't have his cake and Edith too.
And if Kirk had had time to think about it, that's probably what he would have chosen, as a rational, caring human being and experienced Starfleet officer.
I think what Harlan was arguing is that, as a split-second decision, Kirk might have chosen to save the person right in front of him, a person he'd fallen in love with. That doesn't make him a monster. That makes him a fallable human, prone to heart-felt snap decision-making.
What Gene Roddenberry decided, as the producer of an action-adventure TV series in the 60s, is that the hero (and main series lead) needed to be unquestionably heroic by the TV standards of the day, and be strong enough to deny himself the love he'd found (who was only a guest star & wouldn't be back next week), in service to a multitude of others. Marshall Matt Dillon would have made the same decision. As would Chuck Connors on The Rifleman. And Steve MacGarrett of Hawaii Five-O. Etc.
Yes, in literary fiction, it would be possible to explore the ramifications of Kirk's actions (or inaction), delving deep into his mind and tortured soul. Very little call for that on television, then or now. In 60s TV, the star needs to always make the most heroic decisions in every episode, so that the audience will keep on tuning into your series, to see the uplifting stories you tell between ads for Buicks and Frigidairs. Cynical? Maybe. But the reality of TV back in the day...
To condemn the entire human race and millions of lives, as the Nazis win WWII is about as inhuman as it gets.
The big difference of course is that Edith died in the original timeline, and but for the actions of McCoy, by accident, history was changed. If you or someone under your watch causes millions of deaths, you have no option but to undo it if you can.
I don't even think letting Edith die was heroic. It just had to be done. There was no choice.
I'm enjoying doing my fanfic, but there is another, simpler solution to all of this:
It's all based on her starting the pacifist movement.
So, save her from the traffic accident....but then tell her to just shut up.
It's all based on her starting the pacifist movement.
So, save her from the traffic accident....but then tell her to just shut up.
I can't agree. Spock's earlier line in the episode of:
Spock: "...Save her, do as your heart tells you to do, and millions will die who did not die before."
Shows that (given what the know now about the event McCoy altered to create this situation) not saving Edith Keeler is just as 'Human' a thing to do - and required IF they are to restore the timeline in which they and the Federation exist as they know it.
It was heroic because it was the hardest thing he ever had to do. The point of the story was that Kirk was willing to do the right thing no matter how much it hurt him. That's why this is considered the best Star Trek episode ever. It wasn't about heroism-- it was about the price of heroism.
It's more than that. She could meet people, talk to them, inspire them. She could marry someone who married someone else, preventing someone from being born. Inserting her into the 1930s past her lifetime means every interaction she has could have a ripple effect on the next 300 years of history. Think George Bailey. Yes, she happened to have a big impact with the world, but that could happen to anyone unless you get damn lucky.
The only real solution to save her life would be to convince her to go to the 23rd century. Or even kidnap her if needed. The problem though is that Kirk and Spock had no way to get her there in this episode.
Again, it's the exact opposite. To condemn millions for the sake of your personal happiness is as selfish as it gets. If we all acted on what our heart tells us to do, that would require anarchy and morality would be out the window. That's not human.
It was the hardest thing he had to do, but it was the only choice. It doesn't take a hero to do the right thing--it takes a human. And yes, the point of the story is that Kirk would do the right thing no matter how much it hurt him. Selflessness is not heroism--not always. You find a wallet in the street full of money. You return it. You're not a hero. But you did the right thing.
This wasn't a story about heroism. McCoy, someone under Kirk's command, caused the end of the world. It was an accident, but it happened. Kirk fixed the problem. It was his duty, and his only choice.
It's all put-up bullshit designed to make the audience accept the "inevitabilty" of a preposterous turn of events.
The Roddenberry version can't even keep its manipulative logic straight from scene to scene.
At one moment Spock informs Kirk that "There's no mistake, Captain" after tracing a complicated and unlikely chain of events over a period of years connecting Keeler's foundation of a domestic peace movement (there was one in this country during the late 30s, you know that?) and the German development of the atomic bomb, all on the apparent basis of newspaper clippings and newsreels sorted through on his jerryrigged tricorder...
...and just two scenes later, Spock tells Kirk that "We're not that sure of our facts. Who's to say when the exact time will come? " with regard to the manner and time of Keeler's death, despite having read her obituary, describing the time and manner of her death, as part of his research.
The Roddenberry version can't even keep its manipulative logic straight from scene to scene.
At one moment Spock informs Kirk that "There's no mistake, Captain" after tracing a complicated and unlikely chain of events over a period of years connecting Keeler's foundation of a domestic peace movement (there was one in this country during the late 30s, you know that?) and the German development of the atomic bomb, all on the apparent basis of newspaper clippings and newsreels sorted through on his jerryrigged tricorder...
...and just two scenes later, Spock tells Kirk that "We're not that sure of our facts. Who's to say when the exact time will come? " with regard to the manner and time of Keeler's death, despite having read her obituary, describing the time and manner of her death, as part of his research.
Last edited:
This was probably a bit of sloppiness on the part of the writers, possibly keeping "We're not that sure of our facts" from an earlier draft. In context, I think we can interpret Spock as saying "it really doesn't matter if she dies now or a little later like the obituary says." Kirk, perhaps rightly, said they should wait until he can actually stop McCoy from saving her.
Of course, even their presence in that time has SOME effect on the timeline. Consider the death of "Rodent", or even the possibility that the absence of the stolen clothes or the radio tubes Spock bought (therefore denying their purchase by the person who bought them the "first" time) may have a profound effect on the progress of the war. Luckily it didn't.
It's the show, as presented.
"Luckily..." Yep, the story as presented is a put-up job - "this over here is important because I say so, that over there isn't because I say so, this is certain because I say so now, that is uncertain because I say so later." Still, the best hour of Trek ever.
Last edited:
"Baloney and a hard roll for myself...."
One could argue that sums the whole thing up right there.
One could argue that sums the whole thing up right there.
If there was never a hurt/comfort K/S fanfic followup to "City" called "Baloney and a Hard Roll," then somebody missed a trick.
